SUBBHASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted for the offence of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He claims in this application under Article 32 of the Constitution the benefit of the Punjab Borstal Act and has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Hava Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 2001. A counter-affidavit has been filed disputing the tenability of the claim.

(2.) In Hava Singh's case (supra) a two-Judge Bench (including one of us) was considering the claim of a convict for an offence of murder to release taking into account the period the prisoner had stayed in the Borstal Institution. In that case, it was observed :-

(3.) Under the Punjab Act, 'offence' has been defined in Section 2(4) to mean-